Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

April 21, 2008

Hillary as Lincoln? Barack as Lee?

Lessons in history: how surviving to fight another day may be the key to the Democrat race

Tim Hames

The bloodiest and most significant battle of the American Civil War took place in Pennsylvania. At the outset of that conflict, the forces of the North - greater in number and better armed - were regarded as the overwhelming favourites to win the struggle. Yet they were outsmarted by the charismatic General Robert E. Lee, who proved to be more imaginative in the field, inspiring passionate loyalty in his Confederate soldiers.

A bemused Abraham Lincoln was reduced to hiring and firing his generals and constantly reshaping his strategy. By July 1863, it seemed as if the Confederates might storm Washington itself and pull off an extraordinary victory. Their momentum was, however, halted by three days of combat on the fields of Gettysburg. Lee was forced to retreat and his reputation for invincibility was ended. From there, the machine that was the Union slowly but surely crushed its opponents.

Hillary Clinton must hope that history repeats itself in Pennsylvania tomorrow. Having started as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, she has been stunned by Barack Obama's ability to portray himself as the agent of political change, his skill at motivating activists and success in employing the internet to break fundraising records.

He has been the General Lee of the competition so far. If he were to win the Pennsylvania primary, he would indeed become unstoppable. Yet adversity has brought out the best in Mrs Clinton. She has fought for seven weeks in Pennsylvania and while no one has been killed or wounded (unlike the 8,000 dead and near 50,000 casualties and losses at Gettysburg) it has been a bruising struggle with Mrs Clinton landing the most blows. The odds are that she will at least emerge strong enough to take her cause on further.

Whether she can emulate Lincoln or not, though, depends on Democratic “superdelegates”. Neither she nor Mr Obama can secure an overall majority out of those pledged delegates who have been selected in the various primaries and caucuses: there are not enough delegates in the nine skirmishes left after Pennsylvania for that to happen. Everything will thus turn on the almost 800 individuals who have a vote by dint of their present or past service as Presidents or Vice-Presidents, in Congress, as governors of states, as members of the Democratic National Committee or other form of local worthies such as mayors. Strictly speaking, these people are known either as “party leaders and elected officials” (PLEOs) or “un-pledged add-on delegates” (UPADs). You can see why they prefer being called “superdelegates”.

The chances are that Mr Obama will end the nomination season with more pledged delegates than Mrs Clinton. His admirers argue that it would be profoundly wrong for those who have not been elected as delegates to overturn the will of those who have. It's a seductive claim, but there are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore it and instead endorse Mrs Clinton.

The first is, what is the point of the superdelegate system if all they do is follow the majority of pledged delegates? Why bother with them? Why not just allow them to turn up at the convention as mere observers? The Democratic Party created the superdelegate system about 25 years ago because it feared that the party's most ideological supporters were quite capable of choosing a candidate who many ordinary Democrats would not feel able to back at polling stations. If the primaries and caucuses were to be the gearbox of the nominating procedure, then the superdelegates were designed to serve as the handbrake. That is their role.

Secondly, any advantage that Mr Obama will have among pledged delegates is misleading. Not only will Mrs Clinton have won in most of the largest states but she will probably have secured the bulk of delegates won in primaries - where turnout is comparatively high, while he has romped home in the caucuses - where participation is notoriously feeble.

Furthermore, if all the superdelegates were compelled to vote for the person who won the most votes in their state (which they should not be, but it is an interesting exercise), then Mrs Clinton, who is likely to end the season having triumphed in eight of the most populous ten states (including Florida and Michigan, which had their results discounted by the Democratic National Committee as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early), would benefit hugely.

Finally, enough is now known about the strengths and weaknesses of these two contenders for superdelegates to come to the following conclusion. Mrs Clinton is the 5347 option and Mr Obama is the 5542 one. By this I mean that it is tough to imagine her obtaining more than 53 per cent of the national vote against John McCain, but it is hard to envisage her falling below 47 per cent either. Most of those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young) would nevertheless back the New York senator in November (particularly if their man was in the vice-presidential slot).

Mr Obama, by contrast, has a somewhat higher vote ceiling but a much lower floor to his vote. If Americans decide that they are desperate for “change”, pure and simple, then he is a better vehicle for that mood than a woman who has the history of the 1990s attached to her. If, though, voters are after “change (with reassurance)”, as one suspects is the case, then she is a smarter bet against Mr McCain. A sizeable slice of working-class Democrats who back her may switch to the Arizona Senator if she loses. In the worst-case scenario, the Republican champion may well wipe the floor with Mr Obama.

Assuming she is victorious in Pennsylvania, then Mrs Clinton should keep on running. The superdelegates must ask themselves not only “who can win?” but “how might they lose?” For the reality of Gettysburg is not that in pure military terms the North actually won, but that it did not lose. It was this that later made it such a decisive moment.

Well, the author here is arguing the Clintonian side of the argument, which is hardly accepted as truth, fact, or the way it ought to be. One just has to wonder what Clinton would be saying if the situation were reversed. I find it hard to believe she would be taking the classy high-road that Obama has of not pressuring the endgame, but of continually saying his opponent should stay in the race as long as she wants.

I hope America is as sick of the slash and burn, win at all costs politics as I am.

Jim McShields, Birmingham,

"The first is, what is the point of the superdelegate system if all they do is follow the majority of pledged delegates?" The point of superdelegates is a simple, undemocratic, stealing of power and delivery of it to party insiders.

Don, Albany, CA

I don't know if the Civil War generals analogy is the right one. The advantage in resources as well as generalship now favor Obama in a way that the former never did for Lee.

I think the more apt Civil War era analogy-- and one that's easier to untangle-- is the 1860 Republican nomination. NY Senator, establishment frontrunner, years of experience, extremely worldly William Seward vs. former one-term Representative from IL that had been out of politics for over a decade, backwoods dark horse (as far as the nomination was concerned) Abraham Lincoln. And, when you dig deeper into the campaign strategies of each-- one where Seward (played by Hillary) largely took his (her) success for granted, while Lincoln (played by Obama) put together a well-oiled campaign that took him from underdog to nominee. THAT'S the most interesting comparison.

Maybe add Edward Bates (MO) and Salmon Chase (OH) and have them played by Richardson and Edwards, respectively, for good measure.

A.J. S., Washington, DC

Since we're getting off track here, I'd say Antietam was more significant as it forever crippled the A.N.V as a force able to wage and sustain an invasion campaign, as evidenced by the subsequent defeat at Gettysburg. To parallel this discussion, I believe HRC was crippled by his string of consecutive victories after Super Tuesday.

Stephen Wynne, Hilliard, Ohio

Check your stats...you are way off...Obama has the popular and delegate lead..And clinton is not eloquent or honest --she is just wonky..

docb, denver, co-USA

Have another Civil War for all I care.

ian, London, UK

"Most of those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young) would nevertheless back the New York senator in November."

That is highly unlikely to happen. I don't know a single African American that will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination - or for that matter, vote for her EVER again...for anything. And the young people and first time voters who flocked to the party because of Barack Obama are more than likely to be turned off by SUPERdelegates who select Clinton even though Obama is ahead in delegates, states won, and popular vote. The young, and those who hadn't been voting, are going to stay home - and not vote at all. Hillary may get Obama's affluent whites...but those are the only Obama supporters she could count on in November.

DeeDee, Silver Spring,

Gettysburg was more of a stalemate. Lee retreated, but Meade was unable to pursue and crush the Confederate army.

Henry, Dallas, USA/Texas

In the end, it doesn't matter. John McCain will win by a landslide. Just my humble opinion.

Marilyn, Pennsylvania, USA

I love the consistent labelling of groups in commentaries on US politics, ie "those Democrats who prefer Mr Obama to her (African-Americans, affluent whites, the young)". Why not break it down further? Maybe Latte-drinking-Toyota-driving-non-vegetarian-affluent Whites? It is all Balkanization pure and simple. We are human beings, not demographic trends, and we vote according to simple facts and complicated emotions that, however sadly, cannot be summed up in a poll. The problem with Hillary's campaign has been that she has not seen that fact. She does not connect and instead offers platitudes and classic political maneuvers because that's what polling trends seem to indicate would work best. Both she, and the media, have been consistently wrong on all these counts, from the "assured" dive in support after the "bitter" comment to the first contest in Iowa. Hillary is a great candidate who has been blinded by the numbers.

Ian, New York, NY, USA

Well written article, I must say. Good analogy, and logic. But, I hope, for the sake of the nation, and any other nation that is affected by ours (read: THE WORLD), i hope, and I pray that Hillary is out of the running in the next 24-48 hours. Though, I prefer the idea of McCain as President, Hillary at the helm is positively terrifying. So, I'll ask all the Obama supporters...vote early, vote often!

Dan, Portland, US

Am I alone in asking why anyone would vote for poll-driven, mass-produced, thermo-plastic, nonentities like Obama or Clinton when they could elect McCain; a hand-crafted, cast-steel, statesman with a mind of his own and the courage to use it?

If the good people of Pennsylvania want to save the Union a second time perhaps they should send a real message to the "superdelegates" by writing McCain in on the Democratic primary.

Mike Wilkes, Brisbane, Queensland

This is more like EDSEL and not Lincoln
RS

RS, Shelton, CT

Sharpsburg was the bloodiest single day; Gettysburg was, I believe, the bloodiest action overall.

And Meade vs Lee at Gettysburg is an apt comparison, given that the Wilderness was a bloody stalemate, followed by the last Confederate victories of the war.

Owen Edwards, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK

"Secondly, any advantage that Mr Obama will have among pledged delegates is misleading. Not only will Mrs Clinton have won in most of the largest states but she will probably have secured the bulk of delegates won in primaries - where turnout is comparatively high, while he has romped home in the caucuses - where participation is notoriously feeble. "

NO - Barring huge turnout and blowout wins, Obama will end up with a popular vote lead overall, rendering this argument redundant.

Furthermore, if all the superdelegates were compelled to vote for the person who won the most votes in their state (which they should not be, but it is an interesting exercise), then Mrs Clinton, who is likely to end the season having triumphed in eight of the most populous ten states

I believe this is also wrong - i saw stats somewhere that BO will end up with more delegates than HRC if they all went with who their constituents votes for.

mark, london, uk

I'm surprised, considering what appears to be an implication in your eigth paragraph that more people have voted for Hillary, that you have not mentioned the popular vote. Obama leads here too, and I would have thought that would be a point of interest in an article such as this.

Nick, London,

Is Nick from London really daft enough to imagine Tim Hames thinks Lincoln was the general in the field at Gettysburg!?

Missing the point by a country mile.

Rob, Twickenham,

Mr Hames,

I seem to remember your column at the outset of Senator Obama's campaign. It was less than flattering about the senator and almost purile in content. You dismissed Senator Obama's candidature as a joke. Little of what you have written about this presidential campaign has represented actual events and again, we find that this column is filled with inaccuracies. In fact it could be argued that your 'predictions' have represented wishful thinking on your part rather reasoned analysis.

At least your support for Mrs Clinton is consistent with type, she also has a serious problem with facts.

Donovan Wright, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom

Chris of Los Angeles is correct in that Antietam was the bloodiest single day in the Civil War - Gettysburg was, however, fought over three days, resulting in around twice as many casualties overall.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Tim, I hate to point this out, but Lincoln did not win the battle of Gettysburg. that honour goes to General George Mead. Your parallel is charming, but simply inaccurate on the history. You might try Lee versus Grant in the Battle of the Wilderness. That's a more apt parallel, although I doubt that Clinton will emerge as the new Grant.

Nick, London, Uk

The bloodiest battle of the Civil War was in Maryland at Antietam.

Chris, LOS ANGELES , USA

If Senator Obama goes out of the Primary/Caucus season with a commanding lead (100+) in pledged delegates over Senator Clinton, and the Superdelegates decide to go with Clinton instead, it could well be the end of the Democratic Party.

This is not just about two candidates, nor about the victory in November, but about the nature of the party (new, innovative, honest, inclusive versus old, devious, crafty, exclusive) in the future.

Those who have tasted and dreamt a future which is not more of the same-old, same-old will not settle for doing business as usual (lobbyists, privileged money, our-way-or-the-highway).

Had the voice of the people said they were not ready for such change, it would be a different matter.

I guess it would be like your citizens-at-large voicing a clear message and the House of Lord or the Queen deciding they knew better what was good for the common people.

O, yes, I remember now - that was how the little dust-up in 1776 began.

the Rev Dr Randolph Becker, Key West, Conch Republic

The un-examined question is "If those who voted in the primaries prior to March 1 had known what has now been revealed, or rumoured, about Mr. Obama, would they nevertheless have voted for him? Would he still have a lead in 'committed' delegates?"

Russ Armstrong, Becker, Minnesota

Well, as to your statement 'many of her Democrats may switch to McCain' suggests to me that Democrats should make a pledge to vote for whomever is the winner, no buts about it.
Americans would be ludicrous to vote against their own party in the GE because there mustn't be a return of Republicans just to spite their own as it would lead to further deterioration in the world politic body.
If, either Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama does not live up to voter expection, I think, it would be much easier to influence the leader to reconsider policy.

Beverly, Squamish, Canada

Also in Tim Hames

A whopping big majority is pointless

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Tim Hames

Tim Hames joined The Times in 1999 and is a columnist and Chief Leader Writer. He was previously a lecturer in American and British Politics at Oxford University